Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:23:58 +0300 | From | Mika Penttilä <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi |
| |
keith mannthey wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:48 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:23:46 -0700 >> keith mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>> What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call >>>>> to add_memory? >>>>> >>>> Usual sparsemem's add_memory() checks whether there are sections in >>>> sparse_add_one_section(). then add_pages() returns -EEXIST (nothing to do). >>>> And ioresouce collision check will finally find collision because 0-0xbffffff >>>> resource will conflict with 0xa0000000 to 0xa10000000 area. >>>> But, x86_64 's (not sparsemem) add_pages() doen't do collision check, so it panics. >>>> >>> I have paniced with your 5 patches while doing SPARSMEM.... I think >>> your 6th patch address the issues I was seeing. >>> >>> > > > with the 6 patches things work as expected. It is nice to have the > sysfs devices online the correct amount of memory. > > I was broken without this patch because invalid add_memory calls are > made on by box (yet another issue) during boot. > > I will build my patch set on top of your 6 patches. > > Thanks, > Keith > > Keith, are you working on the reserve hotadd case? It looks really broken, at the same time we both assume the hot add region contains RAM per e820 (use of reserve_bootmem_node()) and at the same time in other places (in reserve_hotadd()) that it may not contain RAM. And nodes_cover_memory() is broken no matter what we assume.
--Mika
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |